All posts tagged Conservatives

Much has been made of George Osborne’s flourish at the end of the spending review. The Chancellor said triumphantly that his cuts were actually reductions of 19%, compared to the 20% that Labour’s proposals before the election would have entailed.

This gimmick produced much grinning on the Tory benches and seconds later there was the waving of order papers that looked so triumphalist on television and was at odds with the mood in the country.

But the more one thinks about it, the less sense it makes from a strategic standpoint. Not the 19% number itself; it has been pored over and pulled apart by critics who say it was a stunt worthy of Gordon Brown. The Treasury team claims the figures do add up.

Such harmony on the Cameron and Clegg cuts roadshow. The pair descended on Nottingham the day after the spending review to meet mortal Britons and explain their plans.

Try to keep the cuts in perspective, said Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to an audience including disabled voters and public-sector workers. Keep it in perspective, says the Westminster-educated wealthy representative of the political class with a large house in Putney and a highly paid lawyer wife. If a thought bubble had appeared above the heads of the audience, it would probably have contained the words “That’s easy for you to say, sunshine.”

We are forever being told how close Cameron and Clegg are. They text each other all the time; they build IKEA cabinets together; they wouldn’t go to the bathroom without having it cleared by their coalition partner or the relevant cabinet committee.

Well, sure. But this is politics. And Cameron and Osborne are never not playing the game.

Despite an operation by the Tory whips on Wednesday, an amendment demanding that the government seek a reduction in Britain’s contributions to the EU still attracted the votes of 37 Conservative MPs.

At a time of cuts elsewhere, the EU budget is set to go through the roof. Britain’s net contribution will go up from a chunky £6.4 billion this year to £8.3 billion in 2011-12 and then £10.3 billion in 2015. The gross figures are obviously even higher.

So Douglas Carswell drew up his amendment, attracting 35 Tory signatures. The resulting debate in the chamber on Wednesday evening was fascinating (no, really) with a new breed making their case.

At the Commons yesterday I ran into an esteemed columnist from a leading publication. He came up with such a brilliant observation about Team Cameron that I just have to publish it before he has the chance to get it into print himself.

Analyzing the child benefit row, and the Tory high command’s innovative approach to dealing with stay at home mothers and the middle classes with children, he sighed:

“The problem with the Cameroons is that they are obsessed with the Blair playbook. As a consequence they are constantly in search of their own Clause 4 moment.”

At the Tory conference in Birmingham on Monday evening, at the parties and in the bars, supporters of the chancellor’s policy to scrap child benefit were in confident form. One minister told me that people earning £44,000 are “rich.” I raised an eyebrow. Does he really think that someone with two children living in a marginal seat outside London and earning in the region of £44,000 who already pays rather a lot of tax, as well as possibly finding the cost of a season ticket for the commute, is rich? Nope, don’t think so.

Another young Osborne loyalist told me that I don’t understand where the middle is. It’s around £30,000 he declared, banged me on the shoulder and said: “Got that?”

The morning and afternoon after, having seen newspapers such as the Telegraph, Mail and Express and been deluged with complaints from Tory ministers, MPs and activists, they seem to realize that they might have a problem. An operation is under way. It’s not a full scale reverse ferret, but suggests unease.

The BBC has been briefed that there will be a married tax break along at some point. And George Osborne has sent a long letter to all his fellow Tory MPs in a bid to reassure them that his policy is fair. Senior Tories are asking why the policy was decided in a hurry (on Sunday evening) and didn’t come in front of cabinet. It is suggested Clegg didn’t know, but I find that almost impossible to believe.

Two MPs sent me and others the Osborne letter. Paul Waugh — leader of our British online political journalism movement — was first with the news. Here’s the text:

It is a decision that Sir Humphrey Appleby of “Yes Minister” fame would probably have described as “brave.” In choosing to announce the end of child benefit for those paying 40% tax, George Osborne has at least ensured that Conservative conference this year will not be dull.

Ahead of their gathering in Birmingham, it was being briefed that Osborne had set himself the task of carving out a distinctive appeal to aspirational middle-class voters. Well, he’s certainly done that, and in a highly innovative fashion. Depriving middle-class voters with children of thousands of pounds is an interesting way to set about trying to persuade them to vote for his party.

Only the “richest” 10% will lose out, say the advocates of the policy. But voters on £44,000 with one, two or three children aren’t rich. They almost certainly work hard and feel squeezed enough as it is. Their savings, if they have any, are giving them virtually no return. Will they now thank multimillionaire politicians for removing a sum probably equivalent to the cost of a family holiday and the cost of Christmas presents combined? Can’t see it.

There is also considerable confusion about how this will work. It will be possible for a couple to earn a combined income of £87,000 (as long as neither earns more than £44,000) and still get child benefit. But a family where one parent chooses to stay at home and the other earns £44,000 will have the benefit removed. How does that sit with the Tories avowed aim of supporting the family?

The Conservatives have chosen to cover their tree logo in the Union flag for the party’s conference. To accompany it they have also come up with a new variation on an old slogan: “Together, in the National Interest.”

Outside its invocation in war, “the national interest” is one of the most suspect phrases used by political parties. It is astonishing how much credence it is given periodically. Whenever I hear it used it is impossible not to think of that other old mantra: When they talk of ethics, it’s time to start counting the spoons.

It is not hard to work out what Steve Hilton and those in charge of the Tories’ “messaging” are about here. They are enjoying being in power with the Lib Dems, probably more than they would have enjoyed being in power alone, and seek to explain to their party and the country that their work has a noble aspect. Understandably, they are also seeking to capitalize on the considerable goodwill from certain groups of voters towards the collaborative concept of coalition.

Ireland’s latest GDP figures came out today and they were much worse than anticipated (down 1.2% in the second quarter). Ireland had only emerged from recession the quarter before. The news will fuel fears of a double dip recession, and, when added to the poor numbers in the euro-zone purchasing managers index, given markets a hit.

In Britain it plays right into the debate about public-spending cuts. Ed Balls and others will presumably say it proves that Ireland’s deep cuts in spending have contributed to the country’s economy going into reverse, and that the U.K. government led by David Cameron risks doing the same.

The coalition parties are trying to anticipate the attack, pointing to reduced borrowing costs as evidence that their cuts are boosting market confidence in Britain. Matt Hancock, former George Osborne staffer and now a backbench MP, made this case in The Times on Thursday. His mission is to make borrowing costs seem less abstract, and place them in a context voters will instantly understand.

The first episode of Steve Richard’s new documentary on the Brown years was fantastic radio. He has really captured the mad intensity of that first summer when Blair handed over to Brown. The new prime minister’s ratings soared, much of the press drooled and leader of the opposition, David Cameron, suddenly looked very isolated.

But in dealing with the so-called “election that never was,” when Brown allowed an election to be hyped and then pulled back as the opinion polls suddenly ran against him, it suggests that the participants were operating according to an entirely flawed analysis.

I’ve written this in several places, and I’ll say it again. The decision not to go to the country was taken the weekend after the two major parties had had their conferences — Labour in Bournemouth and the Tories in Blackpool the following week. By the weekend at the end of conference season, it was already way too late. This doesn’t seem to have occured to those in the Brown inner circle, who were still preparing briefings for him and taking the option seriously after the point of maximum advantage had passed.

Trident will almost certainly be renewed, but the final go ahead will not be given until 2015 in the next parliament. As I wrote the other day, the life of the four Vanguard class submarines will be extended by five years until at least the mid-2020s (as was predicted when they were introduced into service between 1994 and 1999). This takes Trident out of the current strategic defense review — thus reducing some of the immediate cost pressures on other parts of the defense budget.

So why is the coalition allowing all manner of rumors about its intentions on Trident to swirl around the party conference season?